https://earlywritings.com/forum/
never done that. You are a liar. I buy Stuart's authority especially about his view on proto-John, where it serves me precisely to prove my point on Barabbas.Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:16 am Also, didn't Stuart have to call you out because you deliberately misrepresented his position to help your case?
Yes, he did.
Irrelevant. You asked me to name just one scholar that rejects your claim about Barabbas and I did. Now admit that you are a fool like you said you would.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:20 am The points criticized by Stuart are points where I admit easily the error and my folly. But as I have often said in this forum, about two thinks I have no doubt but absolute certainty:
- 1) A celestial crucifixion in Paul and Hebrews
I add in this thread the fact that Irenaeus gives further evidence about the last point.
- 2) Barabbas is the Gnostic Jesus criminalized by the Judaizers
I add in this thread that who denies the point 2 is for me really, sincerely, frankly, candidly, a colossal amazing idiot.
Yes you did. You came up with an idea and named it after Stuart because that was your inspiration, and Stuart immediately told you that he wanted no claim for it and that you were misrepresenting his argument.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:21 amnever done that. You are a liar. I buy Stuart's authority especially about his view on proto-John, where it serves me precisely to prove my point on Barabbas.Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:16 am Also, didn't Stuart have to call you out because you deliberately misrepresented his position to help your case?
Yes, he did.
I have asked you only the name of a scholar:Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:33 am You asked me to name just one scholar that rejects your claim about Barabbas and I did.
And here is Stuart's response to you:But I may well appeal to the so-called ''Stuart's Law'' to explain the (apparently unexpected) marcionite acceptance of Barabbas, pace Michael_BG
So am I liar? Am I just making things up like Giuseppe? No. Giuseppe is the revisionist here.Jesus Barabbas and Barabbas achieve the same goal, just as Simon Peter and Peter do. It's a distinction without a difference.
BTW, Couchoud is just a guy, like you an me. And like you and me you can pick a piece here and there that makes sense, and you can discard what you think goes too far or is off course or false assumptions. He makes many, and so I back off that.
There is no real evidence of Jews and Christians in conflict until well past the 2nd century.
As for your insistence upon the 70 AD and passion stories, I think you miss the point. The introduction of a fixed time-space for the Jesus ministry was one of those elements introduced sometime in the 2nd century. If you look at Matthew there are hints of an earlier, version which lacked such elements. It was not Pilate but an unnamed Governor. Marcion's gospel introduced the specific timeline by saying "in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" replacing what was probably a generic "In those Days" we find in Matthew 3:1 and Mark 1:9, which IMO originally opened the proto-Gospel.
These are elements of "Stuart's Law" you cite. Remove these from your original and you find no specific time-space setting. Your argument is based too much on such elements.
So now I have to meet some other nebulous standard, one the is specific towards defending one of your claims while rejecting the other. What an absurd errand to put on someone.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:38 amI have asked you only the name of a scholar:Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:33 am You asked me to name just one scholar that rejects your claim about Barabbas and I did.
- (1) who assumes that in proto-John Jesus is anti-YHWH
- (2) who disagrees, despite of point (1), with me on Barabbas
Because only fools believe this nonsense.In whiletime, I have found evidence that a fool named mountain_man is rather close to my view on Barabbas
BARABBAS IS IN THE MARCIONITE GOSPEL YOU OBSTINATE MORONHe is correct to mean that Barabbas can only refer to marcionite Jesus.
I answer to you by quoting what I had already named as Stuart's Law:Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:46 amBARABBAS IS IN THE MARCIONITE GOSPEL YOU OBSTINATE MORONHe is correct to mean that Barabbas can only refer to marcionite Jesus.
Hence, once Barabbas was interpolated in the Gospels, the marcionites continue to play with it.
But note that the trace of interpolation is still found in John. Next post I will write about it.Stuart wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:04 am
[personal speculation]
Personally, I think one aspect of it is real, Barabbas could well be a reference to the Jewish rebel Bar Kokhba, as the earthly king, as opposed to Jesus the heavenly king ("my kingdom is in heaven"). That is not to say Barabbas == Bar Kokhba, but rather as the one released by the Jews, he is a stand in for the concept of an earthly kingdom, and the early readers would be aware of his fate, and by implication anyone who called for such a Jesus. By the time the first church fathers popped up in the Severan era, this association was a lost memory, and the concept of Jesus having only a heavenly kingdom was the view of all the surviving sects.
I wont defend this concept, just throwing it out as speculation.
[/personal speculation]